What do you want?

My email mostly falls into five categories: 1) Great column; 2) Terrible column; 3) You’re an idiot; 4) When are you going to write about X? 5) CONGRATULATIONS! You’ve just won $10 billion dollars, please send us your bank information and Social Security number so we can give it to you.

Many tell me that I am too negative. They want more upbeat, boosterish coverage, which is considered a huge no-no in the business (to be called a “homer” is to be given an embarrassing badge of dishonor).

Others blast us for putting athletes on pedestals, relentlessly praising them and enabling their anti-social behavior. Or for supporting — directly or indirectly — the obscene con job that professional leagues and owners pull on municipalities with publicly subsidized stadiums/arenas.

Newspapers, in response to sagging circulation and ad sales, are leaning toward more gossip and opinion because that, for better or worse (read: worse), appears to attract more eyeballs. If you mention that to P-I columnist Art Thiel, an old school purist this city should feel grateful to have, his head looks like it’s about to explode. He adamantly believes there needs to be more skeptical, aggressive journalism that investigates … well, everything.

Patrick Reusse of the Minneapolis Star Tribune penned this column last week, and it caused a minor stir among sportswriters. It’s fairly lighthearted, but it cracks on the annual blind optimism that precedes just about every season … though I immediately thought of the almost unanimous doubts the Mariners inspired this spring.